How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Your interpretation of Justin Martyr’s First Apology 6, particularly the phrases "who came forth from Him" and "the other good angels," requires a careful examination of Justin’s overall theology, as well as the precise language he uses.

  The phrase “came forth from Him” does not necessarily imply that Justin considered the Son to be a created being. In fact, Justin’s usage of such language needs to be understood within the framework of his broader Christology, where he repeatedly refers to the Son as begotten, not made. For instance, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin explicitly states that Christ was "begotten" from the Father before all creation. This language reflects the early Christian understanding of the eternal generation of the Son, a concept that was further developed in later Trinitarian theology but is still present in Justin's thought. The Son’s origin from the Father is not an act of creation but an eternal relationship, distinguishing Him from created beings like the angels.

  To further illustrate this, in Dialogue with Trypho 61, Justin compares the begetting of the Son to the way in which one fire kindles another without diminishing the first fire. This analogy shows that Justin understood the Son to be of the same divine nature as the Father, not a lesser or created being. The Son “comes forth” from the Father in an eternal, non-temporal sense, as the radiance from a source, not as a creature distinct in essence.

  The phrase "the other good angels" might seem to equate Jesus with the angels, but this interpretation does not align with Justin's full teaching. In First Apology 63, Justin makes it clear that the Son is worshiped and called “God,” affirming His divine status far above that of the angels. Additionally, Justin explicitly states that the Son is distinct from created beings, which includes angels: "This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures" (Dialogue with Trypho 62). Here, Justin emphasizes that the Son was with the Father before any creation, including angels, which clearly sets Jesus apart from them.

  When Justin refers to Christ as an "ángelos" in some contexts, he is using the term in its literal Greek sense, meaning "messenger," rather than suggesting that Christ is an angelic being like those who were created. He uses this title to emphasize Christ’s role in revealing God’s will to humanity, especially in Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God). However, Justin always maintains the Son's unique divine status, as seen in his description of the Son as "God" and "Lord" in Dialogue with Trypho 128.

  Justin sometimes calls the Son an "angel" (Greek: ἄγγελος, which means "messenger") to highlight His role in God's revelation to humanity, particularly in the Old Testament. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho 60-61, Justin identifies the figure who appeared to Moses in the burning bush as both "God" and "Angel," which is consistent with Christian belief that the pre-incarnate Christ appeared in these Old Testament theophanies. However, Justin does not mean that Christ is a created angel like Gabriel or Michael. Rather, he uses the term “ángelos” to describe Christ's function as a divine messenger. This usage of "angel" does not imply that Christ is a creature but emphasizes His role in delivering God’s message, while His nature remains fully divine.

  Justin makes it clear throughout his works that Christ is distinct from and superior to the angels. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin uses Psalm 45:6 ("Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever") to argue that Christ is God and worthy of worship, which clearly places Him above the angels. Additionally, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin explains that the Son shares in the Father’s divine nature and is distinct from the created order, which includes angels.

  The phrase “other good angels” in First Apology 6 does not mean that Jesus is simply one among many angels. Rather, it reflects Justin’s understanding of the hierarchy within the divine and created order. Christ, as the Logos, is pre-eminent and divine, while the "other good angels" are part of the created order, subordinate to Him. Justin’s worship of Christ, alongside the Father and the Spirit (First Apology 13), further demonstrates that he did not consider Christ to be merely an angelic being but fully divine and worthy of worship.

  Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God on numerous occasions. In First Apology 63, he states: "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." This statement affirms that Justin viewed Jesus as fully divine, not a mere created being. Additionally, Justin argues that Christ was involved in the creation of the world, another clear indication of His divine status (Dialogue with Trypho 61).

  In conclusion, the claim that Justin Martyr viewed Jesus as a created angel or a being subordinate and inferior to God the Father, as the JWs teach, is not supported by the full context of his writings. While Justin occasionally uses the term “ángelos” to describe Christ’s role as a divine messenger, he consistently affirms the Son’s deity and eternal relationship with the Father. Justin’s Christology is far more compatible with later Trinitarian theology than with the Arian or JW view that Christ is a created being.

  @Earnest

  Justin Martyr does indeed refer to Christ using terms like "angel" and "god", but it is crucial to understand how he uses these terms. In Greek, the word "angelos" simply means "messenger," and Justin's use of the term is not to suggest that Christ is ontologically a created angel or a lesser deity, but rather to emphasize His role as the divine messenger of God to humanity. Justin specifically says in Dialogue with Trypho that Christ is the "Angel of the Lord" who appeared to figures such as Abraham and Moses, but he clarifies that this is the pre-incarnate Christ, who is the divine Son of God, not a created being.

  When Justin refers to Christ as "god" (or "another god"), it is important to remember that he is engaging with a pagan and Jewish audience who would have understood "god" in various ways. Justin uses "god" in the sense of one who possesses divine authority and essence, but always in the context of the strict monotheism that he held. He makes it clear that Jesus is distinct from the Father but shares in the same divine nature. As you rightly noted, Justin says that Christ is "not the God above whom there is no other god" (Dialogue with Trypho 56), but this does not imply subordination in essence. Instead, it reflects the distinct persons within the Godhead, a concept that would later be formally articulated in Trinitarian theology.

  You suggest that Justin's Christology does not align with later Trinitarian formulations and that he saw Jesus as a subordinate god. However, this is a misreading of Justin's overall theology. While it is true that Justin lived in the second century and did not use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, his writings clearly lay the groundwork for what would become orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. For example, Justin consistently affirms that Jesus is the "only-begotten Son" and "the Word of God" who is "even God" (First Apology 63). He refers to the relationship between the Father and the Son as one of "begetting," not creation, and uses the analogy of fire from fire to emphasize that the Son is fully divine and shares the same essence as the Father.

  Justin's theology reflects the early Christian struggle to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way that is faithful to Scripture. While he may not have used the precise language of later Trinitarian theologians, the key elements of Trinitarian thought—one God in three persons, with the Son sharing the same divine essence as the Father—are present in his writings. To suggest that Justin believed in a subordinationist view of Christ is to ignore these foundational ideas.

  In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin is primarily engaging with a Jewish audience that rejected the deity of Christ. His argument is focused on showing that Christ, the "Angel of the Lord" who appeared in Old Testament theophanies, is indeed divine. When Justin refers to Christ as "another god," he is not introducing polytheism or a subordinationist theology. Instead, he is emphasizing the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son, which is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology. Justin's language reflects the early Christian attempt to navigate Jewish monotheism while affirming the divinity of Christ.

  Justin's writings do not support the idea that he saw Christ as a lesser or created being. In fact, he argues the opposite: Christ is eternal, pre-existent, and fully divine, sharing in the Father's essence. The use of terms like "angel" and "another god" in Dialogue with Trypho must be understood in their theological context, which points to a high Christology that anticipates the later development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

  You noted that Justin does not directly reference the Gospel of John in Dialogue with Trypho, but his Logos Christology clearly reflects John's Prologue. Justin identifies Christ as the eternal Word (Logos) of God, who is "with [the] God" and "was God" (John 1:1). He emphasizes that the Logos is not a created being but is begotten of the Father and shares the Father's divine nature. This understanding aligns with the Johannine theology of Christ's pre-existence and divinity.

  Justin's use of the term "monogenes" (only-begotten) also reflects John's Gospel (John 3:16), further indicating his familiarity with the Logos theology of the New Testament. While Justin may not explicitly cite John, his writings are steeped in the same theological framework that would later be formalized as part of orthodox Christian doctrine.

  Justin Martyr's writings are an important bridge between the apostolic age and the later development of Trinitarian theology. While the full articulation of the Trinity would not come until the fourth century, Justin's work laid the foundation by affirming the divinity of Christ and His distinction from the Father. His use of language such as "another god" reflects the early Church's effort to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son within the context of strict monotheism.

  In conclusion, Justin Martyr did not believe in a subordinationist or Arian Christology. His writings affirm the divinity of Christ, using language that anticipates later Trinitarian doctrine. The claim that Justin saw Christ as "another god" in a way that supports a non-Trinitarian theology is a misunderstanding of his work. Justin's theology is consistent with the Christian belief in one God in three persons, with the Father and the Son sharing the same divine essence.
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : As you rightly noted, Justin says that Christ is "not the God above whom there is no other god" (Dialogue with Trypho 56), but this does not imply subordination in essence.

  This is what Justin writes :
  

  I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject [hupo] to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God [huper hon allos theos ouk esti] — wishes to announce to them.

  To be clear, hupo means "under" and when used of a person it expresses subjection or dependence. The similar word, huper (used in "above [huper] whom there is no other god"), means "over" and in this context it expresses superiority.

  So Justin says that there is a god and lord subject to the Maker of all things (who is not subject to any other god). To say that this does not imply subordination is to ignore the meaning of plain Greek.
• 

  LV101

  Thank you, Earnest.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  I would like to clarify both the context of Justin's writing and the broader theological implications of his thought. In Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin writes about Christ as "another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things," using the Greek term hupo (ὑπό), which you correctly translate as "under" or "subject." However, Justin's use of the term "subject" does not imply that Christ is ontologically inferior or a created being. Instead, this language reflects the relational distinction between the Father and the Son in terms of their roles within the Godhead, which is consistent with early Trinitarian thought.

  In the broader context of Justin's writings, Christ is clearly recognized as divine and shares the same essence as the Father. Justin frequently affirms that Christ is "God" (Theos) and is worshipped alongside the Father, which indicates a high Christology. For example, in First Apology 63, Justin explicitly calls Christ "God" and affirms that He is begotten from the Father before all creation. He also uses the analogy of fire to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, noting that just as one flame kindled from another does not diminish the original, so the Son shares fully in the divine essence without diminishing the Father's deity.

  The key distinction that must be made here is between subordination of role and subordination of essence. Justin is not implying that the Son is of a different or lesser essence than the Father. Instead, he is describing the Son’s functional subordination in His role as the mediator and messenger (angelos, or messenger, in Greek) between God and humanity. This functional subordination reflects the economy of salvation, where the Son voluntarily takes on a role of submission to the Father's will for the purpose of redeeming humanity (see Philippians 2:6-8).

  In this sense, hupo does not imply ontological inferiority but refers to the Son's role in the divine mission. The early Church Fathers, including Justin, maintained the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of their roles while upholding their ontological unity as one God. The Son's role as the "Messenger of the Lord" in Old Testament theophanies (as described by Justin) highlights His role as the divine messenger but does not diminish His deity.

  Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is an apologetic work aimed at a Jewish audience, and part of his strategy is to demonstrate that the Logos (the Word) of God, who is Christ, appeared in the Old Testament as the divine messenger. When Justin refers to Christ as "another god and lord," he is engaging with Jewish monotheism, which rejected the idea of the Son's deity. By using this language, Justin is emphasizing both the distinction of persons within the Godhead and the unity of essence.

  While Justin uses the term "another god," this must be understood in light of his broader theology. He is not introducing polytheism or suggesting that the Son is a lesser deity. Instead, he is using relational language to describe the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is consistent with early Trinitarian thought, where the Father and the Son are distinct in personhood but united in essence.

  Justin Martyr frequently affirms Christ's full divinity. For instance, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin states that the Son is "begotten from the Father" and is "God," sharing in the divine essence. He describes Christ as the "first-begotten Word of God," and explicitly affirms that the Son is worthy of worship, which would be blasphemous if Christ were merely a subordinate or created being.

  Furthermore, Justin's analogy of fire from fire, mentioned earlier, demonstrates that he understood the Son to share fully in the divine nature of the Father. This analogy was later echoed in Nicene Trinitarian theology to affirm the co-equality of the Father and the Son in essence, even as they are distinct in personhood.

  While Justin Martyr uses the language of subordination in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, it is important to recognize that this subordination pertains to role and mission, not essence. Justin clearly affirms that Christ is divine, begotten from the Father before all creation, and worthy of worship. His use of hupo in Dialogue with Trypho 56 does not imply that Christ is a lesser god or a created being but reflects the early Christian understanding of the relational distinction within the Trinity.

  Justin's theology lays the groundwork for what would later be fully articulated in the Nicene Creed: that Christ is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This understanding is consistent with Justin's teaching, and his use of relational language should not be misconstrued as an argument for ontological subordination. Therefore, Justin's description of Christ as "another god" must be understood in the context of Trinitarian theology, where the Father and the Son are distinct in personhood but fully united in essence.

  FYI: Did Constantine Invent the Trinity?
• 

  scholar

  aqwsed12345

  Your argument relies heavily on a misunderstanding of what the qualitative force of "theos" means in John 1:1c. The commentary you cited from Sacra Pagina acknowledges that the qualitative "theos" describes the nature of the Word—“what God was, the Word also was.” This means that John is affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of God, but not confusing the Word with the Father. The NWT rendering "a god" misinterprets this qualitative force by suggesting a distinction in divinity between the Word and the Father. The NWT's translation implies a secondary, lesser deity, which is not what the qualitative meaning entails. If the Word possesses the nature of God, then the rendering "a god" diminishes this very nature by introducing a subordinationist framework inconsistent with John's intent.

  ----

  There is no misunderstanding regarding the qualitativeness of theos in John 1:1.as shown not only by the Catholic commentary I cited but also by the NWT's rendering of theos' as 'a god'. Such a rendering in English affirms the Deity and divinity of the Word. The traditional rendering theos as 'God' displaces or negates such qualativeness making the theos definite rather than indefinite..Further, the rendering of 'a god' shows the distinction between the Father and the Son, which is made most clear in the Prologue, the Gospel of John, his Epistles, and Revelation. The NWT's rendering 'a god' describes not only His nature but His relationship to his Father as distinct from the Father but his unity with the Father In short, the NWT states most clearly in English not only what John said but what he meant by means of theos without the article hence indefinite and qualativeness by its placement before the verb. Clearly, John introduces the concept of subordination by using the indefinite theos and not the definite ho theos.

  ----

  The NWT introduces a theologically problematic reading by translating "theos" as "a god," suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheism presented in John and throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The qualitative force means that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not as a second or lesser god, but fully participating in God's divine essence. Trinitarianism holds that the Father and the Word (Son) share the same divine nature without being identical persons, which avoids the confusion that the NWT translation introduces.

  --

  The NWT's rendering 'a god' is no more theologically problematic than the traditional rendering 'God' or 'what God was, the Word also was. Any rendering of theos in this instance is open to interpretation hence becoming 'theological problematic'. Such a rendering does not introduce a notion of multiple Gods but preserves the Monotheism container in both the OT and NT. as shown by the use of God's distinctive name throughout. the Bible. Further, it is Trinitarianism that makes multiple gods by its creedal teaching of three Persons in one God, each person being fully God-polytheism or tritheism in disguise?

  The qualitative force of theos does indeed show the very nature of God but His relationship to God as a Son to a Father or subordinate and separate to the Father as being His Son with full Godship for any other interpretation blurs the distinction between these two entities- Almighty God whose name is Jehovah and His Son who was known as the 'Word' later becoming the man, Jesus Christ. The NWT's 'a god' preserves that both the Son and the Father have the same divine nature but are wholly distinct from each other as a Father to a Son.

  ---

  The claim that Trinitarianism is “rooted” in Neo-Platonism oversimplifies the development of Christian theology. While some Church Fathers used philosophical terminology to articulate their doctrines, the core concepts of the Trinity are rooted in Scripture and the early Church’s understanding of Jesus' divine identity. The idea that Trinitarian theology simply “adopted” Neo-Platonism ignores the biblical evidence for Christ's deity found in texts like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, was not simply a product of Greek philosophy, but of theological debates that sought to remain faithful to the apostolic tradition

  --

  Christian Orthodox Theology arose from many sources in the Ancient World over many centuries and chief among those many influences was Neo-Platonism which had a distinct vocabulary adopted by the Church. Many of these terms or concepts are non-biblical which has muddied the waters creating a doctrine that is incomprehensible- Trinitarianism. The core elements of the Trinity are not found in Scripture neither the OT or the NT as many scholars admit. The Nicene Creed, 325 CE was a product of fiery debates amongst the assembled bishops and others presided over by a pagan ruler and not the result of the Holy Spirit. as shown at Pentecost, 33 CE and the First Jerusalem Council,l49 CE. Further, it could not be argued that those assembled were faithful to the apostolic tradition but rather to apostasy or the the teachings of the Antichrist as foretold by the Apostle John in his Epistles.

  ---

  The qualitative rendering, as supported by scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, emphasizes the divine nature of the Word without introducing henotheism. The NWT's translation "a god" distorts the meaning by suggesting that the Word is not fully God but a lesser divine being. This interpretation is inconsistent with the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently affirms the full divinity of the Word (John 1:3, John 1:18) and aligns with the monotheistic faith of Israel.

  Wallace has much to say about the translation of John 1:1, the NWT' rendering of theos and deals with the following issues:

  Is Theos in John 1:1 Indefinite?

  Is Theos in John 1:1 Definite?

  Is Theos in John 1:1 Qualitative?

  Wallace would have better served if he had bothered to read the Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT 1950.

  The NWT rather than distorts the meaning of theos but rather clarifies its meaning in harmony with its context for the Reader in describing the Son's Deity and Divinity as not fully God but as His Son having the same nature, essence or substance as to the Father being created by Him as Firstborn and in subjection to Him.

  ---

  n conclusion, the NWT translation "a god" misrepresents the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c by introducing theological confusion and contradicting the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” is the most accurate and consistent translation that preserves the full divinity of the Word.

  --

  In conclusion, the NWT' rendering the Johannine theos as 'a god' is superior to all other translations and has withstood the test of time in respect of Bible scholarship since the fifties. It alone preserves Biblical Monotheism thematic throughout the OT and the NT. The rendering theos as God' is inaccurate and nonbiblical for it represents the foretold deviation from the True Religion expressed as Trinitarianism- an ancient heresy.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  Your assertion that there is "no misunderstanding" of the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c needs further examination. Qualitativeness in Greek grammar, especially in John 1:1c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence of the Word—expressing full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god. The NWT's rendering of "a god" misses this point, implying an inferior deity rather than the full divine nature John was emphasizing. The qualitative meaning here shows that the Word shares in the essence of deity, not as a second god, but in unity with the Father.

  the NWT's translation "a god" is theologically problematic because it implies the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the strict monotheism found in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The traditional translation, "the Word was God," does not introduce the idea of multiple gods but affirms that the Word shares in the same divine nature as the Father. Saying "a god" introduces theological confusion by creating the possibility of subordination or henotheism—an idea John did not intend to convey.

  The claim that Trinitarianism is "rooted in Neo-Platonism" oversimplifies the historical development of Christian theology. While some early Church Fathers employed philosophical terminology to explain theological doctrines, the concept of the Trinity is based on biblical texts such as John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, which reveal Christ’s divine identity. The Nicene Creed affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, and this was not merely "a product of Greek philosophy" but a reflection of the Church's scriptural understanding of Jesus' deity. The homoousios ("same essence") of the Nicene Creed encapsulates this understanding of Christ’s full divinity and eternal nature.

  The assertion that Trinitarianism represents a "great apostasy" and "stems from paganism", as propounded by Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons, has been widely debunked by both historical and theological scholars. Hislop's thesis was based on selective and often misinterpreted historical evidence, and reputable scholarship no longer supports his conclusions. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to various heresies and was deeply rooted in scriptural exegesis. It was not a pagan "invention", but a theological clarification aimed at safeguarding the Church's teaching on Christ's true nature. Early Christian writings such as those by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers directly counter Arianism and defend the full divinity of the Son, indicating a continuity with the apostolic faith rather than a deviation. FYI: Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?

  You referenced Daniel B. Wallace’s view on theos in John 1:1c. Wallace’s work emphasizes the qualitative nature of theos in this context, affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without implying henotheism or a lesser deity. Wallace’s rejection of the NWT rendering "a god" is based on his understanding that the qualitative theos emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine. By contrast, the NWT introduces theological ambiguity by suggesting that the Word is a separate, subordinate god—a view that contradicts both Wallace’s interpretation and the broader context of John’s Gospel, which emphasizes the unity and full divinity of the Word.

  In conclusion, the NWT’s translation "a god" introduces unnecessary theological confusion by suggesting a subordinationist or henotheistic framework inconsistent with the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The qualitative rendering, "the Word was God," properly reflects the nature of the Word as fully divine without implying a second, lesser god. This is the most accurate translation in line with the intent of John's Gospel and the monotheism of early Christianity.

  By addressing these points, the argument that the NWT rendering is "superior" falls apart under scrutiny, revealing theological misinterpretations and inconsistencies with both the biblical and historical understanding of Christ's deity.
• 

  Ding

  Pastor Russell figured it all out by measuring the Great Pyramid.

  That worked until Rutherford decided the pyramid was satanic.

  After that, it's been new light continuously being revealed to the members of the GB who are neither infallible nor inspired.

  But if you don't believe everything they say, you will be annihilated at Armageddon.

  I trust that answers your question...
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  So, Philo and other Hellenized Jews understood many passages in the OT as identifying emanations (Son of God, Word, Wisdom, heavenly high Priest, Great Angel, Glory of God, Prescence of God, Spirit of God etc.) of the Most High, that in fact were the only direct connection with humans.

  He/it/she bridged the transcendent/immanence (tangible/earthly) barrier. The Son of God, Word, Great Angel etc. was worshipped as God and, as an emanation of God, that was not understood as polytheism. Son of God was the same as saying Glory of God. It follows that prior to any creative acts, these emanations of God were not necessary. The expressions/beings Son of God, Logos and Wisdom are all specifically referred to in the OT, Philo and Gospel John as the first and only direct generation of God by God Most High.

  It should be said that Philo and his school were not completely original in their understanding, they were perceptively observing the work of the Deuteronomists and Priestly editors in consciously providing a buffer between God and earthly matters. (e.g. injection of an angel with God's name or use of new terms Glory of God and Presence of God as representations of God) We even see this concept in Talmudic references to 'Metatron' the Great Angel who stood in for God. Philo simply took that precedent and described it through the lens of Neoplatonism, and in doing so expanded upon both sources. This Hellenization of Judaism was, a couple centuries later, disavowed in an effort to reinvent Judaism as distinct both from Hellenism and Christianity. However, in reality the belief, very popular during late 2nd Temple times, was that the Greek thinkers had in fact drawn many of their ideas, from the Torah and therefore simply represented 'Moses in attic Greek'.

  The idea that the Logos/Sophia (and other variants as well) was the site of God's presence in the world-indeed of God's Word or Wisdom as a mediator figure-was a very widespread one in the thought-world of first century and even second-century Judaism.
  Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought.

  As a natural consequence of messianism of the late 2nd temple period, in some circles the Logos was assigned a new role, heavenly Messiah. We see this in popular writings like 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch regarded as scripture by some NT writers wherein a supernatural being with a human or human appearing Son of Man.

  For from the beginning the Son of Man (man) was hidden,
  and the Most High preserved him in the Presence of His might,
  and he revealed him to the chosen. . . .
  And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his presence; and they will worship and set their hope on the Son of Man,
  and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him.

  This mirrors the Son of Man section of Daniel in thought and wording. While the "son of Man has been debated to be variously an alternative name/form of Yahweh, Michael and by later Christians as Jesus, in fact they are all right. The figure is fated to save the Jews as the Most High's agent. While identification with Yahweh might surprise, recall that it was Yahweh's appearance as a man that started all this.

  As was discussed here in other threads the Son of Man's description as 'rider on the clouds' suggests a Yahweh/Baal connection but yet Michael is later in the section identified as the savior of the Jews. This might represent a later hand attempting to clarify, as Michael the Great Prince (who is like God) was also another of the names of the Great Angel/second power. Christian writers had Jesus self-identify as that Son of Man figure and Son of God, which is why the audience accused him of blaspheme. He was identifying as an emanation of God i.e. God.

  Another theological element of the times was the Adam Elyon, heavenly Man concept. Philo speaks of this as well. It all revolves around the two creation stories in Genesis but in the end, there is a 'heavenly man' and the earthly. Various Christain sects link the concepts, the Logos, Son of Man and the Heavenly Adam.

  
  At a point now lost to us (mid 1rst century BCE-mid 1rst century CE) this Logos, Son of God personified emanation became the focus of a new Jewish sect. That group itself soon splintered into sects, in some cases over the matter of the Jewish Law. For instance, the Elcesaites retained a fully Jewish perspective of the Law, denied Paul, but were anchored in Christian mystic concepts that later Church fathers deemed heretical. that The Ascension of Isaiah (minus some later interpolations) appears to represent an early (preGospel) form of worship that embraced the concept of the second power. The writer clearly says Adam, Abel and all the righteous worshipped the Angel of the Most High also called the Glory of God. The distinct aspect is the description of this figure descending though the levels of heaven in disguise as a man of flesh and eventually being killed by demonic enemies by being hung on a tree.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @peacefulpete

  Your response presents a complex and interesting array of ideas, drawing on sources like Philo, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other Jewish and early Christian traditions to argue that the concept of the Logos or "second power" was prevalent in Second Temple Judaism and provided the foundation for later Christian ideas about Christ. Philo's understanding of the Logos as an intermediary is an important point of discussion, but it must be noted that Philo's Logos is fundamentally different from the Christian Logos. Philo saw the Logos as a mediating principle, not as a person who could incarnate. The Logos in Philo’s system is more of an abstract concept, an impersonal force through which God interacts with the world. It is not fully divine in the same sense that the Christian Logos is, nor does Philo's Logos ever take on human form.

  In contrast, the Christian understanding of the Logos, particularly as articulated in John 1:1-14, is that the Logos is both fully divine and fully personal. The Logos "was with [the] God, and the Logos was God" (John 1:1). This Logos became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), which is a significant departure from Philo's abstract and impersonal Logos. For Christians, the Logos is not merely an emanation or intermediary but is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, capable of becoming flesh and dwelling among humans.

  You mention that various Jewish traditions, including the "second power" concept, influenced early Christian thought. While it is true that some Jews, particularly those influenced by Hellenistic thought, explored ideas about intermediaries or emanations, this should not be confused with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ.

  The "second power" traditions were often speculative and did not have the same theological weight as later Christian formulations. For example, the "Angel (Messenger) of the Lord" or "Wisdom" in Jewish texts is not equated with full divinity as Christians understand the relationship between the Father and the Son. The early Christian identification of Jesus with the Logos and the Son of God went beyond these Jewish ideas, asserting that Jesus is not just an intermediary but shares in the full divine nature of the one true God.

  Additionally, the concept of a "second power" was eventually condemned within mainstream Judaism as heretical, particularly by figures like Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century. This shows that while some Jewish sects may have speculated about intermediary beings, these ideas were not universally accepted and were later rejected as incompatible with strict monotheism.

  Your argument suggests that early Christians viewed Jesus as an emanation of God, similar to figures like the Logos or Wisdom in Jewish thought. However, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is fundamentally different from the idea of emanation.

  In Neoplatonic or Gnostic thought, emanations are usually understood as lower, derived beings that come forth from a higher source. These emanations are often imperfect copies of the original and are not co-equal with the divine source. In contrast, the Christian understanding of the incarnation, as developed in the New Testament and by the early Church Fathers, is that Jesus, the Logos, is not a lower or derivative being but fully God. The Logos does not emanate from the Father in a way that diminishes its divinity; rather, the Logos is eternally begotten, meaning that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father and not a subordinate or lesser being.

  The doctrine of the Trinity further clarifies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but share the same divine essence. This is not an emanationist framework, where the Son or Spirit is seen as a lower or created being. Instead, it emphasizes the full equality and unity of the three persons in the one Godhead.

  The Ascension of Isaiah is an interesting text that provides insight into early Christian apocalyptic thought, but it is important to recognize that this text is not representative of mainstream Christian theology. The Ascension of Isaiah contains elements of mysticism and symbolism that were not adopted into the canonical New Testament writings. While it reflects early Christian interest in heavenly journeys and the interaction between heavenly beings, its portrayal of Christ's descent through the heavens is highly symbolic and should not be taken as a literal account of Christian beliefs about Christ's nature.

  The New Testament, particularly the Gospels and Pauline epistles, presents a much more grounded and historical understanding of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. The focus is on Jesus' historical actions and their salvific significance, rather than on mystical or esoteric journeys through the heavens. The Ascension of Isaiah represents a more fringe theological tradition that did not shape the core doctrines of Christianity as articulated by the early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils.

  Your argument suggests that worship of the Logos as God in early Christianity was influenced by Hellenistic Jewish thought and that this does not necessarily imply polytheism. While it is true that early Christians, including Justin Martyr, spoke of the Logos in terms that would have been familiar to Hellenistic Jews, it is important to emphasize that this worship was monotheistic.

  The early Christians worshiped Jesus as the incarnate Logos, fully divine and fully one with the Father. This was not seen as polytheism because Christians affirmed that Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity later formalized this understanding, ensuring that the Christian belief in one God was maintained even while affirming the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  In conclusion, while your argument raises some interesting points about the influence of Jewish and Hellenistic thought on early Christian theology, it ultimately misrepresents the core Christian understanding of the Logos and the Trinity. The Christian Logos is not an emanation or lower deity, but fully God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, far from being a departure from monotheism, is a deepening of the understanding of God's nature as revealed in Jesus Christ. This belief is firmly rooted in the New Testament and the early Church's reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
• 

  peacefulpete

  but it must be noted that Philo's Logos is fundamentally different from the Christian Logos. Philo saw the Logos as a mediating principle, not as a person who could incarnate.

  I do understand Philo's Logos/Son, who shifted from allegorical to heavily personified, is distinct from how Nicaea understood Jesus.

  Yet I'll remind you that Philo himself allowed for the possibility of incarnation in the stories of visitations, however unquestionably he preferred understanding the anthropomorphic tales to be allegorical. Serving to "explain the supreme to the human condition which needs images because of the limitations of human understanding" as David Baker phrased it. He, as well as Greek 'pagan' writers, had no difficulty reading older tales filled with incarnations and anthropomorphisms as allegorical. In fact, they had no qualms creating new tales with the same allegorical approach.

  Why would we assume the writers of the dozens of Gospels felt any different?

  When we see in Mark, and its embellished versions, pervasive use of OT allegory and typology, we have to ask if the entirety was intended to be understood this way. The implied recurring refrain is "What that writer meant was....". As Augustine said: “in the Old Testament the New lies hid, and in the New the Old is exposed".

  IMO, the writer of the earliest Gospels incarnated their Christ using OT source material just as they drew nearly every aspect of his biography and actions from the OT. They did it in the same way as Philo understood the incarnation stories of the OT; to "explain the supreme to the human condition".